The Medieval Arms Race

The Imperialism of the Roman Empire had a very simple plan: maintain. That meant there was no need to innovate in any field because such innovation may create unforeseen consequences for society. And since the Empire’s borders were pushing into “barbarian” lands, there wasn’t a demand for better martial equipment or tactics. Once the empire collapsed, that changes. The sudden vacuum made all of those in leadership greedy. Now, with no political oversight from the Ceasar, any landlord who wanted to expand his territory could and easily gain more power. But as more and more wars raged, these feudal lords realized they had to strengthen their military might. This newly unbridled ambition led to an accelerated arms race which produced the weapons we see today.

Now, you’ll say, of course, actions of the past lead to today, yes that’s true. What is being pointed out was that the Antiquity time period lasted for thousands of years, and combat remained relatively the same. Yes, it goes from the Copper Age to the Bronze, then the Iron, but it goes from Copper spears, to Bronze spears, to Iron spears. Tactics, weapons, and logistics change only for an early part of Antiquity, then Rome quickly stifles the growth. Once that central power dies, though, then Europe transitions into their new system: feudalism. It is a simple rigid structure that puts everything into order and makes everyone’s goals quite simple, since its main element was clearly defined. Land and power were synonymous in the Medieval era. The more land a single lord had meant he had a proportional number of soldiers and gold from rent to go with it. This gives a higher social ranking. One who was once a baron now becomes a duke. This meant wars raged on almost every societal level. A baron would fight a duke, a duke might clash with an archduke, or maybe two knights would have a duel to become a baron. Such ceaseless combat locks a European leader’s mind into always getting the edge. This mindset quickly did away with late Roman weapons and armor.

The first domino was the introduction of the longbow. It was similar to the standard bow, but the longbow, developed either in England or Wales, was heavier and taller. The average height of the longbow was around 6 feet tall and had a draw weight of anywhere from 130 to 150 pounds. This quickly forced a development. Since the weight had become so high, standard chainmail armor like hauberks couldn’t withstand the amount of force. Soon knights between both England and France were wearing prototypes of plate iron armor. These additions of plate armor were effective against the longbow, so the next adaptation was brought in. The crossbow functions on the same model as a bow, but it is placed sideways and replaces arrows with bolts. Bolts were smaller and heavier because the draw weight of a war crossbow ranged from 700 to 1300 pounds. This is a massive jump from the longbow, which means thicker and bulkier plates were added onto the standard knight’s armor. So many plates are added that you eventually get the stereotypical image of a knight. A man covered head to toe in glinting steel with a feather in his helmet. This creates the end of the armor vs. bow arms race. The armor is as thick as can be and the bows are drawn as heavy as they can. Suddenly, another arms race running parallel begins to bleed over into every area of combat.

As outlined above, in a feudalistic system, land and power are synonymous. Once all of a lord’s knights finished conquering a piece of land, the lord’s presence had to be maintained. This quickly brought about a hierarchy in nobility. If a lord had too much land that he himself could maintain, he would bequeath the land to a lower-ranking leader. The man still paid rent and was also obligated to bring his own forces to war if his lord demanded. Whether it was a king to a duke or a duke to a baron, the system remained consistent. Soon this rent paid to the lords was invested into massive structures called castles. During the feudal period, in order to conquer any land, the castles within had to be in control as well because these were where the power was centralized. Coffers were stored at the castles along with barracks for a lord’s dominant force and the main market of the entire region. And since the castles were of such importance, they quickly became difficult to penetrate. The most effective weapon against them were trebuchets. These were massive catapults that used a counterweight to throw a projectile at the end of a long arm. At the beginning, the projectile was usually just a large boulder, but as castles became more formidable, the trebuchets had to become larger, and the projectiles went from boulder to balls of lead. Only one thing remained: gunpowder. All the first instances of gunpowder in Europe were used in siege weapons, most notably the bombard. This became the replacement for the trebuchet at the end of the 14th century. It was effective and helped get infantry into a city to begin melee combat. But at the end of the 14th century, crossbows were still the preferred infantry counter to knight’s armor. However, within the next century, armor had reached the point that the culverin had to see combat. Soon the culverin, a primitive firearm, developed into the arquebus, then the musket, all the way to modern weapons of war.

The Welsh Longbow was invented around the 1100s and within the next four centuries, we have the culverin being used against infantry. Compare that to the minimal change of warfare during Antiquity. The reason being is that the united Roman Empire lasted over 500 years and always sought to keep order and tradition as the normal. Once the Empire fractured and Western Rome died, Europe suddenly had the ambition to begin its rapid advance forward into the future of warfare. This advance by the Medieval Age is what lead to the creation of the weapons we see today.

References

Encyclopaeida Britannica. (n.d.). Retrieved from Britannica.com: https://www.britannica.com/technology

Rowland, S., & Murayama, H. (n.d.). Educational charts of arms and armor prepared by Bashford Dean. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Witte, M. D. (2019). The absence of the Roman Empire fueled Western civilization, Stanford scholar says. Standford News.